you really need to work on your English. it is so hard to understand what you mean!

the picture you posted seems to be showing number of new addresses used. and that doesn't really show much apart from the fact that there was a growth in bitcoin adoption last year.

ethereum classic is the original chain which ethereum forked off from and split into a new blockchain.
they are all the same except with one difference where ethereum forked and effectively "rolled back" a big part of the blockchain to get out of the DAO fiasco. which means ETH is not longer immutable while ETC which didn't roll back is still immutable.
the other difference that i can think of is the price which is mostly because ETH has the support of the centralized power of the foundation which has a lot of money to pump it. so it has more popularity.

logically what you are asking should work fine and it should technically be the correct question to ask but unfortunately when it comes to reality the flaws don't matter at all when it comes to "investment" and making profit.
you can see many of the top coins are severely flawed and at the same time they are getting pumped and dumped and give lots of profit to investors!
as long as the "flaw" is not something serious like letting others steal your coins, that won't affect the price!

that is true, bitcoin doesn't have to repeat the past performance again but it will repeat it not because it happened once but because the reasons why it happened has not changed. the reasons being an increased adoption while the price is suppressed (kept down) and when it is released a big breakout happens.
and we always have the increasing demand while the supply stays limited and that means increasing price.

it would have been a lot better if you posted a chart. usually a graphical representation of "data" is so much easier to understand and analyze instead of the raw data in text form where you have to read it without any visualization.


number-wise price is the same but market is not at all the same.
last year price was on the rise and we were mid rally while the adoption was growing. this year we are post-correction/post-bubble stage while bitcoin is under-priced.

it is backed by A miner not miners and also miners never back anything apart from their profit. if there is profit to be made elsewhere they quickly switch to it. example of it is the early days of BCH fork where they created the incentive for miners to mine it with manipulating the difficulty, and miners started mining BCH temporarily before coming back to the more profitable coin to mine: bitcoin.

this is always why i am so skeptical about those who ask for help with strange comments while being so willing to give up their secret information such as wallet file, private key, or in this case login information of their website containing a large amount of bitcoin!

"companies" don't care about whether a coin is being mined or not. all they care about is the security and the adoption of a coin they want to adopt. and POS coins are not as secure as you think they are. there is no 51% attack for obvious reasons but there are other attacks that can be even more devastating than 51% attack!

1. when you speak of fees you shouldn't only consider the fees that are paid. but instead you should talk about how much of block space is used compared to the fees. with bitcoin the blocks are full, even if you increase the block size to 32 MB the blocks will be full even if it means miners spamming it. but with BCH the blocks are empty even if they were 0.5 MB they would still be empty. you can't charge a high fee while blocks are empty and you can even call 1 s/b a huge fee!

2. Wrong. bitcoin has on-chain scaling. ever since August 2017 we are having 4 MB blocks and also there is nothing stopping us from increasing it further with other implementations. all you can say is that BCH only has on chain scaling while bitcoin has both on-chain and off-chain scaling.

3. this is simply nonsense used by BCH campaign to advertise it as a coin that people should buy so they can pump it. nothing more

4. being p2p is determined based on peers not how many different implementations there are. not to mention that BCH clients aren't really different implementations. they are the same, in same language and everything only have different names.

i think some things can not be saved. and in case of ethereum it has a bad history that it can not wipe away. even with a fork and change of how network works it may not be the solution that everyone thinks it is.
in my opinion Ethereum 2.0 should be a brand new platform that is built from scratch while learning from big mistakes that Ethereum made.

this is something that you actually need to perform yourself to see what YOU prefer not what others prefer.

of course it is obvious that holding altcoins has never been the best option. you will be risking a lot and will lose a lot of money and opportunity by doing that. but the thing is trading altcoins requires some expertise that you may not possess.
if you are willing to learn then trading altcoins have always been the best option.

we always have times like this when people seemingly give up on bitcoin and it seems like the speculation has left the market. but if you look more closely at the market you can see that the volume is still up, whether on exchanges or off exchanges.
and also you can see that there is "wise money" that is being invested in bitcoin while price is kept stable and low!

i don't think we need a "separate law enforcement department" for dealing with cryptocurrency related crimes because these crimes aren't actually a different category of crimes!
for example hacking an exchange is a general crime called "hacking"!
or robbing someone's bitcoins at gunpoint is the general "armed robbery" crime.
so is everything else you can think of.

BCH dudes are always full of it. but apart from that i have not heard this statement and it doesn't make any sense calling it more p2p than bitcoin!

what i have heard is that they call it more "digital cash" than bitcoin which is different and the whole thing is because it has lower fees which makes sense. but only if you ignore the fact that it is not used that is why it has lower fees (ie. empty blocks).

deadcoin.com has been around for a long time and it is a pretty interesting website for newbies to look at and think a little. but it doesn't seem to be that up to date in my opinion. there are a lot more coins that are dead specially with the influx of ICO shitcoins last year the number grew a lot in a short time.

enhancing security is good but it is not going to prevent hacks from happening. increasing security is like the thing that they should have already done. not something that they should start thinking about now!

what we need is exchanges that guarantee safety of our funds. which means they have to have assets that if they get hacked they use them to compensate us instead of letting us take the loss and they run away!

it is not a dead coin yet but it will be some day in the future.

right now i don't see any reason to buy XRP because there is no pumps going on right now. and also there is no pumps coming to it in the near future that we know of. there is only dumping and no-action for it at the time being.
if that changed and you saw a pump shaping up then buy that time not any time sooner.

hope? that is only for grannies who have no idea what the market is and at the same time want to invest

what we know is that bitcoin is now under appreciated and is lower than what it is really worth. there is always a chance to see some powerful manipulators try to test lower prices but in the end that is not going to change anything. price will eventually rise up because you can not go against the whole market forever!

you can not say that as long as the thing you are comparing bitcoin with is a flawed and full of fraud system.
you are saying bitcoin should be like fiat that is regulated and controlled because bitcoin may have been used for fraudulent activities such as money laundering but fiat that you think is good, is being used in fraudulent activities now!

that will only be a "part" of the future not the future of cryptocurrencies!

the technology has been open source and will remain that way, and because of it you can't change much about the innovations and the real development that takes place in this technology. what they patent is only a small part of it which we can live without.